» Articles » PMID: 25346701

Measurement Invariance Within and Between Individuals: a Distinct Problem in Testing the Equivalence of Intra- and Inter-individual Model Structures

Overview
Journal Front Psychol
Date 2014 Oct 28
PMID 25346701
Citations 22
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

We address the question of equivalence between modeling results obtained on intra-individual and inter-individual levels of psychometric analysis. Our focus is on the concept of measurement invariance and the role it may play in this context. We discuss this in general against the background of the latent variable paradigm, complemented by an operational demonstration in terms of a linear state-space model, i.e., a time series model with latent variables. Implemented in a multiple-occasion and multiple-subject setting, the model simultaneously accounts for intra-individual and inter-individual differences. We consider the conditions-in terms of invariance constraints-under which modeling results are generalizable (a) over time within subjects, (b) over subjects within occasions, and (c) over time and subjects simultaneously thus implying an equivalence-relationship between both dimensions. Since we distinguish the measurement model from the structural model governing relations between the latent variables of interest, we decompose the invariance constraints into those that involve structural parameters and those that involve measurement parameters and relate to measurement invariance. Within the resulting taxonomy of models, we show that, under the condition of measurement invariance over time and subjects, there exists a form of structural equivalence between levels of analysis that is distinct from full structural equivalence, i.e., ergodicity. We demonstrate how measurement invariance between and within subjects can be tested in the context of high-frequency repeated measures in personality research. Finally, we relate problems of measurement variance to problems of non-ergodicity as currently discussed and approached in the literature.

Citing Articles

Adherence to a digital therapeutic mediates the relationship between momentary self-regulation and health risk behaviors.

Plaitano E, McNeish D, Bartels S, Bell K, Dallery J, Grabinski M Front Digit Health. 2025; 7:1467772.

PMID: 39981105 PMC: 11841403. DOI: 10.3389/fdgth.2025.1467772.


Toward Individualized Prediction of Binge-Eating Episodes Based on Ecological Momentary Assessment Data: Item Development and Pilot Study in Patients With Bulimia Nervosa and Binge-Eating Disorder.

Arend A, Kaiser T, Pannicke B, Reichenberger J, Naab S, Voderholzer U JMIR Med Inform. 2023; 11:e41513.

PMID: 36821359 PMC: 9999257. DOI: 10.2196/41513.


Intercorrelated variability in blood and hemodynamic biomarkers reveals physiological network in hemodialysis patients.

Nakazato Y, Shimoyama M, Cohen A, Watanabe A, Kobayashi H, Shimoyama H Sci Rep. 2023; 13(1):1660.

PMID: 36717578 PMC: 9886931. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-28345-1.


Fifty years of structural equation modeling: A history of generalization, unification, and diffusion.

Bollen K, Fisher Z, Lilly A, Brehm C, Luo L, Martinez A Soc Sci Res. 2022; 107:102769.

PMID: 36058611 PMC: 10029695. DOI: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2022.102769.


How to explore within-person and between-person measurement model differences in intensive longitudinal data with the R package lmfa.

Vogelsmeier L, Vermunt J, De Roover K Behav Res Methods. 2022; 55(5):2387-2422.

PMID: 36050575 PMC: 10439104. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-022-01898-1.


References
1.
Bollen K . Latent variables in psychology and the social sciences. Annu Rev Psychol. 2001; 53:605-34. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135239. View

2.
Schmiedek F, Lovden M, Lindenberger U . On the relation of mean reaction time and intraindividual reaction time variability. Psychol Aging. 2009; 24(4):841-57. DOI: 10.1037/a0017799. View

3.
Voelkle M, Brose A, Schmiedek F, Lindenberger U . Toward a Unified Framework for the Study of Between-Person and Within-Person Structures: Building a Bridge Between Two Research Paradigms. Multivariate Behav Res. 2016; 49(3):193-213. DOI: 10.1080/00273171.2014.889593. View

4.
Mellenbergh G . A Unidimensional Latent Trait Model for Continuous Item Responses. Multivariate Behav Res. 2016; 29(3):223-36. DOI: 10.1207/s15327906mbr2903_2. View

5.
Cattell R . The three basic factor-analytic research designs-their interrelations and derivatives. Psychol Bull. 1952; 49(5):499-520. DOI: 10.1037/h0054245. View